--- Shriram Krishnamurthi <shriram at gmail.com> wrote:
> Greg,
>> I'm not sure you entirely understand the interaction of continuations
> and mutation. To wit:
>> > (define a 10)
> > (call/cc (lambda (k) (set! a 5) (k 'dummy)))
> dummy
> > a
> 5
>> Shriram
>
I guess I didn't express myself very well. FWIW, this is the result I
would have expected. I guess another way of saying the same thing is
that I had been toying with the idea that independence of evaluation
order could be "rescued" by by passing to a larger system where
evaluation steps would explicitly involve continuations (e.g.,
"evaluating" (set! a x) does not simply change the value of a to x, but
updates something else, too.)
===
Gregory Woodhouse <gregory.woodhouse at sbcglobal.net>
"If you give someone Fortran, he has Fortran.
If you give someone Lisp, he has any language he pleases."
--Guy L. Steele, Jr.